Mark Knight Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Greg, ...One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in... Mr. Jeffries, If you have a problem with the moderators and/or the administrators of this forum, you should address your complaints to US, and NOT to Mr. Parker. Personally, I don't care what Mr. Parker calls any other forum. Doing so is not a reflection on THIS forum; it is merely an expression of Mr. Parker's opinion...with which I neither agree nor disagree. In one sense it's little different from the various terms used to refer to the Warren Omission...er, COMMISSION, report. If you have an axe to grind with Mr. Parker about something that occurs on another forum, perhaps it should be addressed on that forum. Dragging the personal insults from there to here does nothing to further anyone's education about the JFK assassination. And that's MY opinion. Other moderators and administrators may or may not share that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Mark, My comments about this forum on DPF were nothing I hadn't expressed to you and the other moderators in several emails. Did you get those? I do want this forum to flourish, and have done my best to add something of value to the discourse here. I don't know what you mean about my discussing problems I have with the administrators of this forum with Greg Parker. I think James is doing a good job- it's not easy managing all these strong personalities. I have accused the other moderators of being inconsistent in applying the rules, going back to when Jim Fetzer, Peter Lemkin, Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully were banned. My comments about Greg Parker's forum are appropriate, because they serve to explain why it's understandably hard for me to be civil with him, given how I've been attacked there. How his forum is run is his business, but would you respect someone who allows you to be ridiculed like that on his own forum? To be honest, if Greg Parker wouldn't keep insisting on defaming the memory of Jack White, then I wouldn't continue this circular, pointless debate. Apparently, there aren't many people here who cared about Jack White. Edited June 20, 2015 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Mark, My comments about this forum on DPF were nothing I hadn't expressed to you and the other moderators in several emails. Did you get those? I do want this forum to flourish, and have done my best to add something of value to the discourse here. I don't know what you mean about my discussing problems I have with the administrators of this forum with Greg Parker. I think James is doing a good job- it's not easy managing all these strong personalities. I have accused the other moderators of being inconsistent in applying the rules, going back to when Jim Fetzer, Peter Lemkin, Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully were banned. My comments about Greg Parker's forum are appropriate, because they serve to explain why it's understandably hard for me to be civil with him, given how I've been attacked there. How his forum is run is his business, but would you respect someone who allows you to be ridiculed like that on his own forum? To be honest, if Greg Parker wouldn't keep insisting on defaming the memory of Jack White, then I wouldn't continue this circular, pointless debate. Apparently, there aren't many people here who cared about Jack White. Mr. Jeffries, I was not an administrator or moderator when Fetzer, Lemkin, DiEugenio, and Scully were banned. I am now. In case you were not aware, the ownership of the forum has changed since then, and we are less concerned with past personal problems than we are with what is occurring here these days. As I have stated previously, what occurs on Mr. Parker's forum is not particularly germane to what goes on at this forum. Nor is any problem that occurs on the Deep Politics Forum... unless those discussions shed some light on the JFK assassination. I strongly suggest that ALL leave their baggage at the door when you enter here...and concentrate on the evidence and arguing the interpretation of such, rather than the personalities of the people with whom you verbally joust. Whether someone is civil towards you elsewhere is not our concern HERE. Our concern at THIS forum is that people behave in a civil fashion on THIS forum. Again, just my take. Sorry to hijack the topic, but I believe that the moderators and administrators here have been called out, Mr. Jeffries. The current administrators were not part of what you allege occurred here prior to about one year ago, so I believe you have called us out unjustly. Surely you can't think I'm on Mr. Parker's "side" in any of this; I'm sure he is convinced of exactly the opposite. And the truth of the matter is, I'm simply trying to be as impartial as possible, without staying on this forum 24/7 to deal with petty personality dust-ups. [There's something out there called "life," and I have one.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Mark, My comments about this forum on DPF were nothing I hadn't expressed to you and the other moderators in several emails. Did you get those? I do want this forum to flourish, and have done my best to add something of value to the discourse here. I don't know what you mean about my discussing problems I have with the administrators of this forum with Greg Parker. I think James is doing a good job- it's not easy managing all these strong personalities. I have accused the other moderators of being inconsistent in applying the rules, going back to when Jim Fetzer, Peter Lemkin, Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully were banned. My comments about Greg Parker's forum are appropriate, because they serve to explain why it's understandably hard for me to be civil with him, given how I've been attacked there. How his forum is run is his business, but would you respect someone who allows you to be ridiculed like that on his own forum? To be honest, if Greg Parker wouldn't keep insisting on defaming the memory of Jack White, then I wouldn't continue this circular, pointless debate. Apparently, there aren't many people here who cared about Jack White. It's called parody. Like cartoon caricatures, parody accentuates certain aspects of a person. Don't like what you see? Then you probably don't like what you see in the mirror, either. And again - I do basic admin. The site is partially funded by members and it is member driven. The rules are minimal and simple and based on personal responsibility and legal requirements. What you believe about my site is no defense on any other matter, nor any sort of argument to bring up in a debate about Odio or anything else. Finally - regarding White, you are shooting the messenger and avoiding the elephant - in this case Jack's own contradictory explanations. Edited June 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 At the risk of taking this thread back to its title, I have to admit that I initially found the Yates story pretty convincing but now find that Greg has introduced sufficient collateral and especially timelining of Yates remarks and actions to make me reconsider based on his apparent mental problems. However, Greg, help me a bit.......you think Yates picked up Craford, if so where (I seem to remember there was an issue of where Yates was even supposed to be doing service calls that morning) and if so what did Craford say to make him memorable enough to recount the passenger to a co-worker. If it was just about Ruby's club why did Yates mention that initially...if it was about a wrapped parcel why did he not say that - and I guess beyond that, why did Craford say anything at all other than talk about the weather. Do you think Yates filled in all the details later after concluding it was Oswald, after seeing his picture on TV? Something caused him to mention it and for his coworker to support him afterwards....what was that? Sometimes I get lost in these extended threads... -- thanks, Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) At the risk of taking this thread back to its title, I have to admit that I initially found the Yates story pretty convincing but now find that Greg has introduced sufficient collateral and especially timelining of Yates remarks and actions to make me reconsider based on his apparent mental problems. However, Greg, help me a bit.......you think Yates picked up Craford, if so where (I seem to remember there was an issue of where Yates was even supposed to be doing service calls that morning) and if so what did Craford say to make him memorable enough to recount the passenger to a co-worker. If it was just about Ruby's club why did Yates mention that initially...if it was about a wrapped parcel why did he not say that - and I guess beyond that, why did Craford say anything at all other than talk about the weather. Do you think Yates filled in all the details later after concluding it was Oswald, after seeing his picture on TV? Something caused him to mention it and for his coworker to support him afterwards....what was that? Sometimes I get lost in these extended threads... -- thanks, Larry Larry, You are right to zero in on Yates' evasiveness about why he was in Oak Cliff - it was certainly not as part of his job. From memory, the location of the pickup was close to a cafe that Crafard had been known to be in with Ruby once or twice. He would mention Ruby only by way of wanting a lift to the Carousel, but settled for the corner of Elm and Commerce(?). There is a DPD document stating that Ruby took Oswald to gay parties and that Oswald was considered "rough trade". That was undoubtedly Crafard. Now think why Yates was so obtuse about being in Oak Cliff... Yes, Yates mentioned the hiker had a package before the assassination. I don't think that is out of the realms of the ordinary - just a passing comment. Everything he said post assassination could have been obtained from media reports. That aspect has been thoroughly checked. I think Yates' was a latent homoxesual and that was the reason for slow mental meltdown post assassination. He couldn't explain why he was in Oak cliff... The above was the result of collaboration with Lee Farley. I will stand by it until if/when someone comes up with something better. Okay. I'm ready for the name-calling y'll. ps Thanks for an open mind, Larry. Edited June 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Mark, The emails I'm referring to were sent since you became a moderator. You should have received them. I realize you weren't a moderator at the time the individuals I mentioned were banned, but the same inconsistency remains in terms of how posters are moderated. I know it's a thankless job, and we all do the best we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 From memory, the location of the pickup was close to a cafe that Crafard had been known to be in with Ruby once or twice. He would mention Ruby only by way of wanting a lift to the Carousel, but settled for the corner of Elm and Commerce(?). Just further to that, dropping him off at that location was Yates' story. I wouldn't be surprised however if they had both gone back to the Carousel to the privacy of Crafard's little room... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 Mark, The emails I'm referring to were sent since you became a moderator. You should have received them. I realize you weren't a moderator at the time the individuals I mentioned were banned, but the same inconsistency remains in terms of how posters are moderated. I know it's a thankless job, and we all do the best we can. Yes, I noticed how you were all over it when I was called a xxxx several times in one post by Josephs. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, Jack smeared his own reputation by giving 3 different versions of the nature of his relationship to Armstrong star witness, Frank Kudlaty. You're just shooting the messenger. without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, The evidence is right here on this forum. It came straight from the horses mouth and via Armstrong himself who claims White gave him a third version. You guys are just willfully blind. you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. Brian has an identity crisis. As usual, you have this entirely the wrong way around. He's the one that needs to explain why he calls himself Albert. Of course I refer to the other forum as FooFoo? No, Don. Deep FooFoo. It's gotta be deep, otherwise it's just meaningless Foo. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I never gave him the name "Brian". His parents did. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, I thought you had no connection to him. Now you you can see inside his head? Remarkable! compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. I need to explain it because.... why? Let him explain his peccadillos. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. Obsession would be hosting a website/shrine to it for how long? 15 years and running for the lapdog? It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. My interest is in getting the case reopened. Part of that is clearing the decks of all the garbage that discredits the case for conspiracy. I have also gone after JVB, Fetzer, Cinque and others. The effort expended by me on any of them is commensurate with the resistance offered. As has been pointed out, H & L is a well-organized group which acts very much in the same way as a cult. To that extent, it's a special case. JVB is learning. She is organizing herself and her followers along similar lines. But they are less visible, preferring for the most part to stay behind locked doors. It's all rather creepy, imo. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, So... there were no riots in FW in 1956. The FBI planted those stories and destroyed the evidence that they really occurred in 1958? So tonsils never ever grow back? So Bennerrita Smith made up the name Bobby Nuemann out of whole cloth. The little nerdy guy she described as hanging out with Voebel was really "Harvey"? So John Pic's memory of Ekdahl's height trumps actual documentary evidence that he was actually 3 inches shorter? So the Frankenstein image was correctly labelled as NOT the one used by the newspaper? And on and on... And of course, Hargroves has not been forced to change anything at his shrine. That's just a figment of my imagination. Don, the first rule in maintaining credibility in a debate is to debate with honesty and integrity. Don't fall back on logical fallacies. Don't make stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't misrepresent the arguments and positions of your opponent. You guys should try resisting all of those things. I know. It would make it tough, but at least you will be able to hold your collective heads up. despite all your claims of victory, Examples where I have claimed anything of the sort. See above about misrepresentation. the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. One man's laughing stock is another's sane environment for research which does not rely upon 50 different fonts, sizes and colors surrounded by dancing emoticons to deflect from its myriad flaws. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. "Serious" researchers don't use 50 different fonts, colors and sizes surrounded by dancing emoticons. They don't employ the whole gamut of logical fallacies to defend their positions. They don't shoot the messenger. I have the case for conspiracy, Don. Last I looked, the statutes on conspiracy didn't require the need to prove the existence of a CIA doppelganger program. You might want to check that with your very busy loyer friends. Come on, Don. Step up to the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Step up to the plate for what, Greg? I've rebutted your assertions over and over again. You're just going to keep making the same claims. You may not use large fonts or emoticons, but every post you write is loud, very loud. You're figuratively shouting over others, which is a timeless strategy that works on a lot of people. Please tell us how you know Albert Doyle's real name is Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Step up to the plate for what, Greg? I've rebutted your assertions over and over again. You're just going to keep making the same claims. You may not use large fonts or emoticons, but every post you write is loud, very loud. You're figuratively shouting over others, which is a timeless strategy that works on a lot of people. Please tell us how you know Albert Doyle's real name is Brian. 1. How about explaining why you state my claims about White are merely suspicions when the evidence is right here on this forum that he gave two different accounts of his relationship to Kudlaty. And then more recently, we are told that Armstrong claims White told him he didn't Kudlaty at all. I don't mind Don. If I have to keep repeating it, I will, until you address it. 2. Ask Brian how we know. I'm sure he has worked it out by know. Ask him about his holocaust denial beliefs while you're at it. Nice fella. Edited June 21, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, despite all your claims of victory, the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. Of course he has a vested interest: his own book. Same vested interest David Lifton has, if his LHO book actually ever comes out. I ventured over there yesterday and the low level of discourse was ....ah, I have no word to describe it. Nasty comes the closest. And as far as possible from "deeply political". PDS would not be impressed, I'd wager. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, despite all your claims of victory, the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. Of course he has a vested interest: his own book. Same vested interest David Lifton has, if his LHO book actually ever comes out. I ventured over there yesterday and the low level of discourse was ....ah, I have no word to describe it. Nasty comes the closest. And as far as possible from "deeply political". PDS would not be impressed, I'd wager. Dawn Some of the best research on the case anywhere http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13125405-buell-wesley-frazier-where-s-your-rider http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13122617-dallas-transit-transfers- http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13109060-my-essays-on-gerald-hill http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13163914-prayer-man-gifs http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13193208-hill-butler-and-burnley http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13189732-earl-william-lively-jr- http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13188338-agent-quigley-robert-cullum-and-a-earl-cullum-jr http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13151626-the-roll-call-remedy http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13184106-porter-lee-bledsoe http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13133861-eddie-piper-his-escort-service http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13161079-the-fpcc-was-a-paper-tiger http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152018-ward-s-drug-store http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13142746-whaling-on-whaley http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13074611-letter-cutouts That's just from the first 7 pages. And let's not forget the old site: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f1-jfk http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f7-events-in-politics And all the great essays: http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/essays-index.html But tell me how you all missed this? http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13148528-will-the-real-albert-doyle-please-stand-up- The fact is, some of you did not miss it at all. Some of you have been quoting from it. So you know damn well how we know what Doyle's real name is. You've just been playing dumb to keep from looking stupid! Thank you Dawn, for taking a second from your busy schedule to allow me the opportunity to showcase a small fraction of some of the fantastic research done at ROKC! I do feel for DeepFoo though... taken in by someone who, rather creepily, has assumed his father's identity and is a Holocaust Denier to boot. How to save face in that situation? I guess if you are DeepFoo, you just pretend it's all a bad dream and it goes away... Edited June 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 "deeply political" Dawn? what you guys call "deeply political" is as far removed from PDS as it gets. PDS has something called "evidence". What you guys indulge in is deep fantasy spurred on by weird contortions of evidence, cherry-picking, whole cloth, and a pseudo-paranoid world-view, all thrown into the pot and spiced and seasoned with the world's biggest collection of dancing emoticons, I admit, they probably do serve the purpose of distracting from all the elephants in your room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now